Twitter discloses national security letters • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#21

Post by anw » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies.

While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel they can side-step these checks and leave out the need to get a judge's approval for these kinds of things.

A response from the Internet Archive (2016) also stated:

> The NSL we received includes incorrect and outdated information regarding the options available to a recipient of an NSL to challenge its gag. Specifically, the NSL states that such a challenge can only be issued once a year. But in 2015, Congress did away with that annual limitation and made it easier to challenge gag orders. The FBI has confirmed that the error was part of a standard NSL template and other providers received NSLs with the same significant error. We don’t know how many, but it is possibly in the thousands (according to the FBI, they sent out around 13,000 NSLs last year).

I wonder what kind of legal action could even be taken against this kind of treatment (being given wrong / outdated information on legal options)?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#22

Post by herval » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

thedevil wrote: post #7

Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.

Do you have any source to confirm that "shadowbanning" even exists?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#23

Post by losteric » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

dgrealy wrote: post #19

It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.

That's certainly the intent, but at this point NSL's are more of a drag-net approach. Rampant abuse is undermining it's legitimacy.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#24

Post by exp1orer » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #5

This is great Twitter is being open about these. Do these releases get media coverage? Is anyone talking about the various lawsuits and blog posts about public releases of NSLs by tech companies? I wish the NYTimes and WaPo spent as much time caring about this stuff as they did about being the non-critical mouthpiece for various "anonymous intelligence officials". There is definitely a story that could be made out of…

If you read the actual letters, you'll see they ask for

"the name, address, length of service, and electronic communications transactional records for all services, as well as all accounts, provided to the individual(s) or identifier(s) listed below."

The letter explicitly says not to provide information "that would disclose the content of any electronic communication".

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#25

Post by thinkloop » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

CaptSpify wrote: post #2

Although they could have just sent it onto the intended target and gone quietly about their day, I'm really glad that Twitter made this an announcement. Do they have any kind of warrant canary system?

I was just thinking about this - what kind of system could work in these circumstances? Say someone had to press a button every hour otherwise an automatic public release gets sent - the government could simply imprison the person for not pressing it. Say no-one knew who is supposed to press it because of some system of randomness and crypto, then you just threaten the CEO with imprisonment for not dismantling the whole thing. It seems only a fully decentralized organization could get away with it. Thoughts?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#26

Post by smoothgrammer » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

jpmattia wrote: post #20

dgrealy wrote: post #19

It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.

> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.

I know, right? Who could possibly judge one way or the other?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#27

Post by teddyh » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 12:00 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #10

thedevil wrote: post #7

Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.

Is this the same Scott Adams that claims to have been shadowbanned, without any proof? Might his lower Twitter engagement have something to do with people getting sick of hearing from him about Trump?

How would anyone actually prove something like this, short of getting Twitter to admit it? What he has seen is:

> my tweets only go out to a subset of my followers. The rest don’t know I tweeted. My followers tell me this is the case. They have to visit my timeline to see my tweets.

What other proof could anyone realistically provide?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#28

Post by teddyh » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 12:01 AM UTC

Fauntleroy wrote: post #14

thedevil wrote: post #7

Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.

If that's the case I'm surprised Adams hasn't packed up and taken his business to a competitor like gab.ai

He actually adresses this point:

> Realistically, can I quit Twitter and be a successful media personality without it? Not in today’s world. The only way I could make that work is by having a huge presence on Facebook or Instagram.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#29

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 12:03 AM UTC

jpmattia wrote: post #20

dgrealy wrote: post #19

It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.

> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.

That's what trials are for. The trial system is deeply imperfect, but investigating someone with a view to putting them on trial is not inherently untoward. You seem to be arguing that a trial should precede an investigation.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#30

Post by thedevil » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 12:03 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #10

thedevil wrote: post #7

Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.

Is this the same Scott Adams that claims to have been shadowbanned, without any proof? Might his lower Twitter engagement have something to do with people getting sick of hearing from him about Trump?

"Might his lower Twitter engagement have something to do with people getting sick of hearing from him about Trump?"

Do you really think the attention he gets on Twitter DROPPED because of him talking about Trump?